Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2006

Self-nom. I believe this now meets all of the specified criteria, so am listing it here. If I'm wrong, please sound off and I'll do my best to fix it up. See also: peer review page. -- Visviva 09:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very comprehensive and well-referenced list. Excellent work on dealing with the issues raised on the peer review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sources should not be mentioned in the lead as this doesn't summarize the topic. See WP:LEAD. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... I agree, actually, but including the references in the lead actually seems to be standard practice in FLs (which is why I followed it here). See, for example, List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain, List of Kansas birds, and various other featured lists of animals. I think the reason for this is that the list needs to make its membership criteria clear in the lead, and doing so generally requires mentioning the references. -- Visviva 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: have trimmed this part of the lead to what I think are the bare essentials (2 sentences). Hope that meets any objections. -- Visviva 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renata 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have a friend here that is a birdwatcher and according to him Korean animals aren't as well-known as they should be. I'm sure there'll be a lot of "Sea of Japan" vs. "Sea of Korea" when it gets on the front page but it'll be worth it. Mithridates 12:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support the images really help Hmains 05:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My only slight qualm was actually regarding the (table) template rather than the list, but that's been taken care of. Great list.--Wizardman 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived previous nomination

Okay since the first FLC this has been greatly improved per the comments left on the old page. Also this has gone through a thorough peer review and all the suggestions there have been seen to. The main concern with the previous nom seemed to be the length of the lead, now at two paragraphs the lead complies with these suggestions (at two paragraphs long) everything is sourced and I think we have the Featured List precedent for a List of characters article here.

†he Bread 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The previous problems seem to have been addressed. It passes the guidelines set out at WP:WIAFL - it's useful (important fictional information for Metal Gear Solid), comprehensive (contains substantial information on all characters), it has many reliable sources, passes the Manual of Style and has images where appropriate. Good work. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Support. Nicely done, but I have some minor suggestions:
  • Wikify the changes by 65.32.231.181.
  • Organize interwiki links by alphabet.
    • These were categories, not interwiki links. By interwiki links I mean links that link to the article in other languages. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are sorted, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Suomi. Jay32183 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rave.jpg and Mantisss.jpg have a poor fair use rationale format, please use the widely accepted format for screenshots (e.g. Children of the Gods 1.jpg).
    • All fixed up, thaks go to TheEmulatorGuy, also there is Image:Wolfey.jpg, which I fixed aswell †he Bread 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metal Gear Solid was the first game in the Metal Gear series to feature fully voiced characters and 3D graphics.[3] Whereas Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake both showed conversation either over a voiceless radio or via text displayed on-screen, Metal Gear Solid features fully voiced characters.
    • Fixed †he Bread 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While captured Otacon develops an infatuation with FOXHOUND member Sniper Wolf,[20] who is later killed by Solid Snake. - Wrong use of while here.
    • How's this[1]
  • Change all "v.b." to "voiced by", this is an uncommon shortening.
    • It's not an uncommon shortening, in fact it's used in Metal Gear Solid 3 (featured article) and Metal Gear Solid (good article), not to mention it's explained as "voiced by" earlier on. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shortenings are never good for the readers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reluctantly I have gone and changed it †he Bread 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand the information about Solid Snake.
    • There's little expansion that can be done without diving into the main article on Solid Snake. The system I used was that if the character was on the List of recurring Metal Gear characters or had his own article, I would stick to only the information in Metal Gear Solid. Otherwise I would add info on other games to the characters whoa re primarily here. Big Boss is the exception as you need to know what he did to undestand his role †he Bread 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...due to the fact they did not know if the project was supported by the Screen Actors Guild or not,[2] and as such the only ones who used their real names were David Hayter (Solid Snake) and Doug Stone (Psycho Mantis). - Split this to two sentences. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split †he Bread 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment May require a copyedit. "Due to the fact..." in the lead is very clumsy, use "because" or "since" instead. Jay32183 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A thorough and honest attempt to use mostly primary source material as a reference. Not all the relevant ref-quotations have (Metal Gear Solid) appended, which they should. At the end of all the refs should be a bullet-point with the full citation for the MGS game you take the quotes from. Perhaps {{Cite video game}} can be used for that. A few of the {{Cite web}}'s should have some extra parameters such as publisher and date (of publication). It would be better to find another source for ref 2 since IMDB trivia pages are not considered a reliable source. Colin°^Talk 13:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey thanks for that, I had no idea cite video game existed, it's gonna take a while for me to do all the quotes but i'll do the things cited to MGS2 now †he Bread 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support forgot to do this, support as nominator †he Bread 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information on seats won and vote shere from 17 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Newfoundland and Labrador.
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

(Self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks as good as the other election lists. --Arctic Gnome 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - These are really well done. Resolute 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A very complete and well-researched list of elections, which is up to the standards of many other featured ones. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Move the image up per similar candidates and capitalize the beginning of all notes. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support with my minor copyedits to the text. Useful list. Hmains 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has turned almost all of the red links blue while I was not looking! Comments and ideas welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Lead could explain what an encyclical is. Latin names should be in italics per the MoS. The reference should be properly formatted, idealy using cite web or at least show as much information as required by the template. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice and to the point. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very nice and complete list. Just format the dates at the lead correctly (e.g. instead of 16 October 1978, write October 16, 1978). Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As a British Wikipedian, ALoan is quite correct in writing [[16 October]]. See WP:DATE. The English title column header wraps untidily. Perhaps just "Latin title" and "English title" would be satisfactory. Colin°^Talk 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. List of towns in the province of Alberta, Canada, with some statistical data. List is comprehensive, stable (numbers would change every 2 years, but are easy to update), accurate, uncontroversial. It's well linked to, as part of the {{Alberta}} navbox. --Qyd 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Town population can exceed 10,000 people unless the council requests a change to city status," - this sentence isn't written correctly. Why are some towns listed with "(located in)"? Rmhermen 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input; Reworded sentence; the larger towns are administratively autonomous, even if when they are surrounded by land governed by county authorities; removed "located in", as it's specified at remarks that those towns are stand-alone municipalities. --Qyd 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The list was rated B on the quality scale, which suggests it is either not comprehensive, not entirely accurate, or has other problems (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). Could you please provide your comments on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply: I tagged it as B myself, as part of the WP:CANADA article assessment. I tend to be rather conservative when rating an article, as I believe that (generally) a page should go through WP:GAC, WP:PR of WP:FAC/WP:FLC before receiving anything higher than B. This is the reason why I assessed it as B, even though I know it is complete and accurate, and I believe it is comprehensive. But I'm open to any suggestions for improvement. --Qyd 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, good. I just wanted to make sure that nothing is amiss.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, explanations of and/or links to the terms used in the Remarks column would be helpful. What's a "specialized municipality"? "Area Board"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without knowing who actually rated this article, and what their concerns are, I, frankly, find the assessment to be worthless. To my eye, the list appears to be complete, and factually accurate. I do agree about the lack of definitions for those categories. Though "Area Board" is anagolous to County/Municipal seat, since the special areas are defined as neither It may help to include this somewhere. Resolute 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Made marked-up links to Special Areas Board, Alberta, List of Alberta municipal districts#Specialized municipalities, the definitions are provided there. The other terms mentioned at remarks, municipal district and county, are wikilinked above the table--Qyd 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks, that helps. On an unrelated note—the article currently states that communities with populations falling below the 1,000 limit may retain town status. What do you mean by "may"? Is it interesting enough to have written more about? Also, there are links to city and town, by neither of these two articles has a section specific to Canada. Is it possible to target the links more accurately?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not aware of any community to renounce town ststus in favour of village, although teoretically it is possible (changes from village to hamlet, city to town and even city to hamlet exist). I felt the comment was necessary because a population below 1000 would not warrant the incorporation as a town. Rephrased to Communities with shrinking populations are allowed to retain town status even if the number of residents falls below the 1,000 limit, hope that makes it clear. City and town... I could link city to List of cities in Canada, but that wouldn't explain the concept. The fact is that incorporation of communities in Canada is legislated by the provincial governments, and thus can vary from province to province. The reference provided at the end of that sentence contains the Alberta-specific definitions. --Qyd 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the explanation. The way the sentence was structured before, I was under impression that communities the populations of which fell below 1,000 mark were to become a subject of some kind of review, the outcome of which would decide whether or not their town status should be retained. I thought more information on that might be of interest to readers, but I guess I read too much into it :) As for the city/town status being different in each province, do you think creating a series of articles on each province incorporation policies is possible? I have exact same problem with Russia, and am planning to do just that eventually, because I can't think of any other efficient way of dealing with it. I am not going to make this a condition for my support (that'd be cruel :)), but it is something you might want to consider eventually. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Linked to List of cities in Canada#Alberta, just noticed that a brief definition is given there. --Qyd 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Complete, factual, my only (minor) concerns addressed. Resolute 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please move the sources to a new subheader under "References". Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: That was already the case, all external references use the inline citation style. De-linked "Alberta Municipal Affairs", so it doesn't create the appearance of an inline external link (also, it's already wikilinked above). The sources were initialy anchored in the table header, but I had to move them, due to incompatibility with css class "wikitable sortable". --Qyd 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant taking the sources, changing their format, and then moving it under notes/references. See the Stargate SG-1 episode list as an example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean using {{cite web}} for the inline references? I could do that, but all that cite web does is format an external link using a template (the goal being to achieve a unifom format). The references are already consistently formated (I just changed the one that was slightly different), the only thing that I could add is the access date, but honestly, I fail to see the point in having wikilinked dates attached to an external link. A non-wikilinked date I could manulay add, but again, I don't see the relevance. I might be wrong though. Regarding moving the sources, do you mean using the {{note}} + {{ref}} system? My preference is having them inline (this way, changes don't require editing in two separate places, and I find the plain html tags easier to descipher when compared to the note-ref coordination). --Qyd 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appologize, I guess I misread you suggestion (again). You were suggesting to have a subsection called "Notes" under "References"? That would only apply when the notes explain someting in the text (like footer notes in a book), less so when citing sources.--Qyd 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well you can also just move the sources to the section, without adding subheaders. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would imply using {{note}} + {{ref}} (for inline citations, which are a must). While the note+ref system has its advanages (such as customisable order), it is my opinion that it confuses new contributors, making the article harder to edit. The rendered page would, however, be identical with the currently used Cite.php style.--Qyd 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the ability to sort by each column of the table is really cool. I think this feature is not very common in WP and needs an explanation sentence or two so readers will know how it exists/how to use it. Hmains 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took it from List of Dartmouth College alumni, listed just below in FLC (thanks Dylan). It looks like usage of class "wikitable sortable" is becoming more common lately. Added explanation below table. --Qyd 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support good list and useful Hmains 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Small oppose - lead is too short & choppy. Also convert references to {{cite web}} format. Renata 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used {{cite web}}.--Qyd 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. Renata 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this was last nominated a week ago, all the comments were dealt with within a few days of its nomination, but no one bothered voting ether for or against. According to the {{FLCfailed}} template now on the page, I can resubmit this “once the objections have been addressed”, and since all of the objections had been addressed four days into it’s last nomination, I guess I can just resubmit this automatically.

• Support as nominator. --Arctic Gnome 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Canadian politics is becoming a new cricket ;) Renata 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support with some edits I made a few days ago Hmains 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In great shape, dynamic but I feel very comprehensive, includes some pictures for flavor, extremely well-cited. Two notes before you view:

• There's a citation for every single alumnus/na except for numerous federal legislators; those that seem to be unsourced are all covered by the this blanket list, which is the supporting citation for the statement "Over 164 Dartmouth graduates have served in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives." The list was compiled in 1999; those federal legislators who took office after then have their own supporting citations.
• I realize the intro is rather short by FLC standards, but I honestly can't think of legitimately relevant information that could be put there. It's simply a clear definition of what the list comprises; if you see this as a problem, please identify some specific information that could be included to expand it.

Thanks! Dylan 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - May want to consider putting the list in chart format, see List of Oregon State University people for an example. There are several other featured lists of people in chart format and we may want to have consistency in that regard, although I certainly don't think that should prevent it from being featured by itself. Also see what I did at list of OSU people for the lead to expand it, you may want to come up with something like that. My reasons for oppose are: What dictates the order of the TOC? You may want to make it in alphabetical order. Headers should not be wikilinked per the MOS. Image:Dartmouth Shield.png needs a fair use rationale to be used on the list. Image:WilliamJewettTucker.jpeg is untagged, it needs an appropriate tag. Image:DSouzal.jpg looks suspect. Looks like a promotional photo yet tagged as PD-self by an editor with very few contributions and who has several image deletion notices on his talk page. Image:Michael slive.jpg needs a fair use rationale. All references should use the cite web template. Biographies on IMDB are submitted by users and cannot be considered reliable sources. "Sports" section doesn't look very comprehensive. I realise Dartmouth isn't in a power conference but I am sure there are more sportspeople that could be included. There is an arbitrary white space under the "Members of the United States Congress" header, probably due to the image next to it that needs to be fixed. There should not be multiple wikilinks to the same article in the same section (i.e. linking to vermont multiple times in the members of US congress sections). VegaDark 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks -- those are a ton of really good suggestions that I can use. I'm on it. Dylan 07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I didn't come off too strongly. The list is still better than 99% of alumni lists on Wikipedia. Also, for not wanting to link to the same source for all the congressmen, see what I did for all the football players on the OSU list. You can just assign the source a name and add that at the end of each person without much extra work. VegaDark 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Oh, no, not at all, I was being sincere -- those are good suggestions and they're really going to help me improve the article. I'll do that for the congressmen. Dylan 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support - All my comments have been addressed, very good work. I'm going to have to steal the "sort by" button at the title of columns for my list, that is a very nice feature. VegaDark 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You should find a source for Josiah Bartlet, but all in all it looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote this yesterday, and I believe it adheres to the featured list criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though to clarify I'd rename the list to List of retired Pacific hurricane names or similar. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, I'll do that. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, you're fast. Jay32183 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Wizardman 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support after my minor copyedits. Good list Hmains 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - lead could be longer. Renata 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestions? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I just moved this list to the main namespace today, and I think that it is suitable for becoming another featured list. It meets all of the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improper date linking. Rmhermen 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs a picture at the top of the page on the right. Also, it varies between present and past tense. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be all past tense now. Also, it is intended that a track map be an image in the top right. When it is created it will be put there. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. I recommend you add a bit about warnings; maybe mention the breakpoints (not necessarily all of them). In some places the wording isn't the best. For example, the pre-1929 section starts the same way for all but the first one: A tropical cyclone... It gets a little repetitive and boring. "was "clobbered"" is a bit unprofessional. I recommend you combine pre-1929 with 1930-1949, seeing as how short they are. Also, aren't the years supposed to be linked when they are first used? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should now link each year the first time it is used in a date. Rmherman, if this is not what you were referring to please be more specific. Also, there is now a section on breakpoints, the first two subsections in the main part of the list should now be merged, and the prose in those former sections has been edited. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. You should finish the Cite web template indicating the year, author, and publisher. Also, some of the more notable storms should get more length (the longest sections are three lines long, so more info can't hurt). I'll support now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Full dates (including years) have to be fully linked every time to fully enable Wikipedia's date preferences. See also MOS:DATE Rmhermen 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate parts of a specific date should all be linked now, although I'm not sure how to handle a range of dates. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way to handle ranges of dates. Don't sweat that part. Rmhermen 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For the track map, I suggest you contact Ajm81, as Nilfanion is unavailable due to Acts of God. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not. He's back, as he repaired his internet connection after a lightning strike. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Hurricanehink. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Death tolls don't match in list and deadly systems sections and also don't match totals in the storms articles. See Ishmael for instance, with numbers ranging from 0 to 116 dead. Rmhermen 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number "116" doesn't appear anywhere in the article... Hurricane Ismael says 116, but of those, a maximum of 57 could have been from the Peninsula (as the rest were deaths within the Mexican mainland). That's what the article reflects... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point but the text should reflect this qualification. Rmhermen 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose standalone years and months never need to be linked; linking gets in the way of good reading. Only month/day/year work for formatting preferences Hmains 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be fixed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been through peer review and the issues raised there have been resolved. I believe this list now meets the criteria required for FLC candidates. Self nomination. HornetMike 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Thoroughly referenced and up-to-date. I think it is great that the editors (mainly HornetMike) have gone to the trouble of locating a reliable source for all the manager's appointments rather than just scraping a list off someone else's site. A list like this needs to be maintained. I hope the WikiProject Football support you in this task. Colin°^Talk 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very, very nice. — Seadog 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support jeez, thats just, awesome †he Bread 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: You want to put the link to the Longest Serving Managers page under a new external links section. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if it wasn't used as a reference. I believe it does serve as a reference since it enables the reader to check that these managers are still the manager. (Though that ref isn't updated as quickly as this list.) Colin°^Talk 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support incredibly neat and immensely well researched and constructed. As long as it is kept up to date, it has my vote any time. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. One of the best lists on Wikipedia Kingjamie 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An excellent list providing sources for each date. Not a single red link. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Dario Gradi's nationality. See Talk Page.--Skully Collins ^Edits 12:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any problem with that. He was born in Italy and lived in England, hence both. If anything, the Italian flag has more reason for being there - I imagine there's a few managers listed there as Irish and Welsh who've spent most of their lives in England. HornetMike 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOSBIO, the nationality should be "the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." According to List of British football players with dual nationality, he has dual nationality (though that list has no sources). If he really has dual nationality, then I guess that is OK. Colin°^Talk 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it meets the FL requirements. --Arctic Gnome 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. --Arctic Gnome 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lead is too short. Renata 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's longer now. --Arctic Gnome 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sortable is wierd. Clicking on names sorts them by first name, not last. Clicking on either of the two date columns does something - but I can't figure out what. Anyone know what sort order that gives? Rmhermen 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I figured out the order - just the first letter of the name of the month. Rmhermen 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that warranted a comment rather than an oppose; it took about five seconds to take out the storability. --Arctic Gnome 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sorting was useful for those columns where it worked properly. I don't know if it can be used only on some columns or used with sort keys? Rmhermen 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen sortable tables before a few days ago, so I don't know how to use them. I'll just submit the list without sortability. --Arctic Gnome 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've investigated it (m:Help:Sorting) - and the only way to make dates sortable is to enter them in [[YYYY-MM-DD]] format - and to have your date preference unset or set to that format. You cannot sort and display in the common day-month-year or month-day-year formats. And no way to sort by last name of individuals. Best to leave it out until they can fix these sorts of issues. Rmhermen 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good, comprehensive list. A few points: I would agree with Renata about adding more lead if I could think of what more would be helpful (but I can't at the moment). There are some inconsistencies with the length hyphens. Lastly, as seen on the list in Supreme Court of Canada article, there is some dispute about whether we should say that a Prime Minister appoints or whether the Gov Gen appoints on recommendation of the PM. The latter approach to me seems to split hairs, but perhaps they are hairs in need of splitting. --PullUpYourSocks 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead just has to give enough information so that everything in the list makes sense. Basically, what they are, what the chief is, and how they are chosen (including who appoints them, what qualifications they need, and how long they can stay in power). As for the "Appointed by" column, I think having the PMs is more useful information, but then we have to replace the words "appointed by" with something else (maybe "chosen by"). --Arctic Gnome 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The list needs a longer lead, at leats a paragraph long. CG 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's longer now. --Arctic Gnome 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll extend this nomination a couple days to give you enough time to extend the lead. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll have that done by the end of the day. --Arctic Gnome 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information from 37 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Nova Scotia
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This is one is different from the previous four, in that it also has a table showing percentage share of vote. Self nomination. Tompw 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nova Scotia House of Assembly goes back to 1758. I understand if you only want to include post-confederation results, but you should mention in the opening what you are including and spend at least some space talking about the pre-confederation background. --Arctic Gnome 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've expanded the intro accodingly... please take a look.

• Object I'm afraid- too many redlinks, which is one of the things sepcifically commented on in the Requirements for lists. Also, Artctic Gnome's comments need to be incorporated, and I'd like to see the percentage of vote and number of seats in a single table, as I think that would be more useful. Looking back on the other lists you've done, I see that Saskatchewan gives the total number of seats in the table as well- that'd probably be a useful addition for this and the other lists as well. --G Rutter 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work (I thought I'd already changed my vote- clearly pressed the wrong button!)! I'd have gone with option 1 anyway (with the addition of (%) on the Vote)- it'd be interesting to do this for the other tables as well (he writes, cheerfully creating more work for other people!). I hope that this one gets through now as well! --G Rutter 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right on the redlinks issue. I'd forgotten about that one. I shall create brief articles for them all. In the mean time, let's deal with the rest of the issues.
  • Total seats - done.
  • Single table...I thought about this, and two posisble layouts sprang to mind. One is to have a party's seats and votes in adjacent columns (so that info is grouped by party); the other is (essenentially) to have the votes table alongside the seats tabl (so that the info is grouped by type). What the table top look like is shown below. I'm not convinced that either works very well visually.... what do people think? Tompw 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore that... I've gone ahead and combined the tables (using option 1). Only took 20 mins. Tompw 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: OK... 33 out of the 37 items on the list are now bluelinks all the election back to 1882). I think that satisfies the "large majority of links to existing articles" required by WP:FLC 1a. Tompw 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Not sure about the external link. Doesn't seem specific enough to this page and their historical list doesn't seem any more comprehensive than this. Colin°^Talk 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information from 37 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Manitoba
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support complete and useful Hmains 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good! --G Rutter 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent list. My one problem is that your reference only goes to the 1999 election. Add one for 2003 and you have my support. --Arctic Gnome 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Tompw 19:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another good list. Colin°^Talk 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice format and very useful. — Seadog 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information from 38 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via BC Elections
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This was a Good Article until they stopped accepting lists. The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just format the reference using {{cite web}}. I see a bunch of FL comming... Renata 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Very prescient of you :-) Tompw 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support complete and useful Hmains 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; very good and well sourced. Laïka 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you tabulate the Elections prior to provincial political parties as has been done for Manitoba? I don't think this list can be said to be comprehensive until you've done this! --G Rutter 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There were no political parties in BC prior to 1903, hence why pre-1903 elections are not included in the "Summary of results by party" table... it wouldn't make sense! There are linked via the section below, so the list is definately comprehensive (just rather boring before 1903). However, I have shifted the "notes" section below the pre-1903 material, so that it links togther better. Tompw 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just realised you mean the government/oposition table... will look at Elections BC and see if there's details. Tompw 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Done :-) Tompw 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent! Sorry for not making myself clearer originally; I had also checked to see whether it would be possible! --G Rutter 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The reference was just to the general election site rather than to the historical stats, but I fixed that for you. Otherwise excellent list. --Arctic Gnome 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perhaps wikilink unicameral in these lists? Colin°^Talk 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list had good reviews and had probably reached concensus to be a Featured List in a prior nomination; however, because of some discussions to drastically reformat the list, I withdrew the nomination. Those discussions have concluded and this list is being submitted for featured list status again.

Improvements since last nomination (or as a result of comments from the last nomination):

• Introduction is more concise
• Addition of Image showing locations of all temples
• Improved references
• Use of templates to remove table formatting
  • Allows editing of data on each temple to be entered by novices without effecting formatting
  • Makes reviewing and finding individual temples in the edit screen easier
• Addition of statistics chart
• A stub or more exists for every temple that has been completed, and some that are under construction or announced
• Images have been added (first 10 temples all have images)
• No fair use images remain

Respectfully --Trödel 18:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to external links in body text, nine anonymous hyperlinks and I've got a query as to which references were actually used.

  Thanks for the suggestions - see below (lines beginning with √ or ʘ) for status of resolution of listed comments/issues. --Trödel 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The 5 temples under contruction have external links for their "Construction details". External links should be only found in the appropriate end sections.

  √ Moved to references. Current status summarized from lds.org and ldschurchtemples.com

• The (D&C 88:119-120) external link, I'm less sure about. If you moved this to the footnotes/references section, you could expand the citation (I didn't know what D&C was) and even supply a short quote using the cite book template.

  √ moved quote - leaving quote in biblical "Book_name Chap:Verse(s)" format (

• The nine anonymous hyperlinks can be found in the Footnotes section. These should be fully cited. Footnotes with inline-citations are awkward. You could consider using the ref/note system for lettered footnotes (see the Canadian election FLCs), which then appear above the References section and so can themselves be sourced.

  √ I limited this to only those areas where readers tend to edit the data incorrectly. Since it really is a good reference, but people tend to change the information I want to leave the links in.

  • I don't understand this. What are readers editing incorrectly? Why is this stopping you using a full citation? You don't need to do the notes/refs split, just put the citation in parenthesis if you want. But they should be full {{cite press release}} {{cite web}}, etc with dates, publisher, title, access dates, etc. Conditional support Colin°^Talk 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, I misunderstood - I thought you were suggesting to use the notes/ref split. Now the suggestion makes more sense to me. Major references should go in reference section like a normal article. And minor references should be in footnotes. I will use the full cites - I don't see why we shouldn't. --Trödel 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm What I meant originally was a style where comment-footnotes use letters, citation-footnotes use numbers and general references are a bullet-point list. This allows the comment-footnotes to have superscript numbered inline-citations of their own. It is just a style - if you want all footnotes (comments and sources) to be mixed together then that's ok, just a bit messy. To complicate things futher, some folk just use an abbreviated cite in the footnote (especially when making extensive use of a textbook) and put the full citation in the references at the end. In the end, it gets fully cited, which is what matters. Clear as mud? Colin°^Talk 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep - can you link me to an example of that - I have been using the <ref> type for the footnotes rather than the harvard style - which I like for references that are used more than once (bullet list at end - Author, year. for the inline or footnote cites) but would be interested in the a,b,c, and 1,2,3 used simultaneously - I looked at some of the current Canada election candidates for FL but couldn't find (or saw and didn't recognize) the example you referred me to previously. BTW, this is complete I believe. --Trödel 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean by editing incorrectly. For example the Southwest part of Salt Lake Valley temple: This was being changed by giving it a number, and putting in Bluffdale Temple or Herriman Temple - I wanted to leave the notes in so it is clear that the temple property was acquired but no announcement was made indicating that efforts towards construction had started. --Trödel 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how the mormon.org site served as a reference to this.

  √ I think this was included in some references included from the Temple (Mormonism) page and information from that link is not being used so I removed it

• The www.ldschurchtemples.com site seems to the source of much of the data (including area and style) as discussed on the talk page. The www.lds.org site is similar but doesn't have all the data (that I can find). So I think the former needs to be a reference.

  √ For me the main source I used was the almanac (I referenced the one I own but also borrowed the 2006 edition (published in 2005)

• Drop the ---- surname bit in the citation template, it looks odd.

  √ implemented

• Don't include external links that you've already got as references. Try to ruthlessly prune your external links – they must add a signifcant amount of info relevant to this list in particular (as opposed to all the other LDS articles).

  √ cleaned up

• Similary, prune your See also for the similar reasons. If you've already got wikilinks, don't add a see also.

  √ removed those that are already referenced inteh article text

• Note 6 (rededication date) is not required since your row heading already says "Rededication".

  √ implemented

• Some of the Notes concerning Rededication specifics could be just appended to the Rededication row. Number 25 could have a Rededication row. Alternatively, some Notes could be made footnotes.

  √ resolved I believe

• Number 10 mentions reopening but not when it closed (only mentioned in footnote). To be honest, this seems a somewhat trivial detail for this list.

  √ moved this detail to the main article - was only of interest during the renovation really.

• Don't know what "Smaller and remote area 1" means. Perhaps you could explain this in the lead or wiklink?

  √ Updated to match styles given in references. Bytebear is working on Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints) using the Hawkins book and other references on getting these titles sourced and consistent.

• Footnote 13 has rather too many references!

  √ resolved

• Re: wikilinking dedication person. Convention is to link just the first occurrence. How about a compromise of linking just the first occurence per section.

  ʘ Would like to leave this as is for now, this will change with the implementation of the centralized data locaiton for each temple that will be used in the lists and the individual temple pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples

• The Jun-Dec 2000 section doesn't have lines between the temples.

  √ This is a rendering issue that occasionally happens on my monitor too - but the table lines are in there and defined properly so try refreshing the screen.

Yes, that is an issue in long tables and those with a bit more complex layout. I believe the root of the problem lies in the "wikitable" CSS class. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it is a fine list! Note: many of the above points are just suggestions. My main concern is improving the references. Colin°^Talk 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with some caveats of the inclusion of info included below: -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The original Apia Samoa should be listed under "temples destroyed" section. No number as in the text below. But it seems odd to be numbered below. let's move it up.
• Far West (announced by smtih on the eighth day of July, 1831, discourses of Brigham young 471; cornerstones dedicated april 26, 1839 - discources of wilford woodruff pvi, also d&c 115 7-8)
• Adam-ondi-Ahman/Spring Hill (announced april 26, 1838, and site selected in may 1838 and dedicated by JS jr - see Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Stevens and Wallis, 1945), pp. 208-9.)
• "Independence Temple complex" in Jackson County Missouri (ie independence - site dedicated aug 1 1831 - see bh roberts, outlines of ecclesiastical history page 343.) wtc. -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of moving Apia Samoa under Nauvoo. Not sure where we would put "Abandoned" temples (under Announced maybe?) - of course Harrison NY is looking pretty abandoned ;) - We may also want to included Hartford Connecticut. It was announced and abandoned as well. --Trödel 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just joking about Harrison - but when I went to the official list - it is now missing .... --Trödel 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps we list them under a section titled: "Announced but no current plans" rather than abandoned. LDS theology would typically say that once a temple site as been designated by revelation, it will be built there, just a matter of timing either before or after Jesus returns, or even "in heaven." I think a new section is warranted for this. -Visorstuff 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing on template talk page. --Trödel 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alot of work went into that article; good job. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very good list, though I think it would be even better if there was some recognition of temples that were designated, or their site dedicated, but not built (yet), as suggested by Visorstuff. COGDEN 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information from 26 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Alberta
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This was a Good Article until they stopped accepting lists. The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support after I added the missing 1st dynasty from the paragraph discussing 4 dynasties. Useful and complete. Hmains 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good! --G Rutter 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The reference was just to the general election site rather than to the historical stats, but I fixed that for you. Otherwise excellent list. --Arctic Gnome 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that :-) Tompw 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Slight concern that the tables at the bottom are nearly as big as the article itself. Colin°^Talk 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's mostly due to the Alberta provincial electoral districts nav-box. However, given time and enough elections, the main article will get big enough for this not to be a worry. Tompw 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Comprehensive list including all players in the tournament, with some relevant statistics at the time. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks good - can someone note that Yuvraj Singh was injured before the last game, and as I believe it, Shanthakumaran Sreesanth was allowed to be subbed into the squad and played the last game against Australia? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. But it was Agarkar who was officially subbed out of the squad, even though Yuvraj had the more serious injury. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The list is currently sufficient, but would it be an improvement to add more text to provide some more context, eg Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was wondering if a note could be included that this is a cricket event, for those of us who aren't familiar with the ICC. Jay32183 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lead to short. Renata 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Expanded to two paragraphs now. That better? Sam Vimes | Address me 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, good enough. Renata 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good work, but a few nits. Are captains meant to be listed first? If so, why not for Bangladesh? You could use 'class="sortable"' to enable sorting of the lists by number of ODIs, batting and bowling styles, and domestic team (dates do not work well at the moment unless written in ISO YYYY-MM-DD style). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What's the parameters for the inclusion of Englosh counties in the player's teams. Did they play from them in the last season? Or in the past two etc. HornetMike 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 2006 season. I'll add a note to that. Sam Vimes | Address me 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resubmitting this list because the concerns that were brought up the first time (only one – a discussion on the talk page which has since been resolved through references) have now been fixed. One thing that was brought up too late was about images – I've searched and can't find a free image of anything even remotely relevant, nor a fair use image which, in placing it in the article, would satisfy FUC. I'm satisfied with the page now and think it's well-referenced and clear. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You don't need to use an image for the timeline - see m:EasyTimeline as implemented in John Vanbrugh (see {{John Vanbrugh timeline}}) and Isambard Kingdom Brunel (see {{Isambard Kingdom Brunel timeline}}). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Easy Timeline be redundant, however? I can understand putting it in an article, but to have a timeline image on an article entirely devoted to the timeline? I'll remove the image anyway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of the image is that is presents the two timelines side-by-side. I think an EasyTimeline could do the same. As I see it, the image/timeline and the text should be doing different things - the image/timeline should be a short summary of what happened when, and the text should be a longer narrative explanation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some things Lewis put on the timeline, like "570 – About this time lived Moonwood the Hare," we know nothing else about, he only randomly mentioned them on the timeline. I understand the purpose of seeing the timeline side-by-side, but I don't entirely agree with the duplicate nature involved in it. One advantage to it

(dates only) in a right column, to see when the years aligned with each other, something which is not proportionally (visually) shown in the list. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't include everything in the timeline, and could include any arbitrary lesser amount of text. If that helps with the decision. LloydSommerer 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The formatting doesn't do anything for me, I'm afraid. The way the England section refers back to the Narnian time just seems clumsy compared to a visual timeline (like the picture that seems to have gone). Perhaps ALoan's suggestion (EasyTimeline) would help, but I'm not familiar with it. The "See also" link should be better formatted. I'm a little bit uneasy about effectively reproducing a portion of a work of fiction (or the author's commentary on it). Colin°^Talk 23:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To address each of your points:

• The England section, as I see it, is meant to be more of an "add-on" section. The part about the Narnian time is really the key thing; England is just additional info. It so happens that certain key years in that history directly correspond to Narnian years, and since we're on the Narnian years page, we'll list those years that are equal. (Then, we'll throw in birth dates to be complete.)
• See also link: I always thought you weren't supposed to pipe links like that, because there's no other text which is supposed to be read there like you do when you pipe within prose, as I just did (the page name is Help:Link but I want it to read "pipe"; in a see also set-up you just need the page name). Maybe I'm confusing that with dab pages.
• What are you uneasy about? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't know. Just seems a bit like lifing a "whole something" rather than just extracting bits from a larger source. Just ignore it. I'm going to sit on the fence here. I'm just not going "wow" enough ("our very best work") to Support but have no strong reason to Oppose. I thought a few comments were better than the silence you got last time. Colin°^Talk 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay, I understand and appreciate this. Though about the "see also" link – should it be piped so as to read "History of Narnia" or something, or aren't they supposed to not be piped? Or is that only for dab links? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is a good collection of episode summaries, nicely sorted, and updated when new information comes out. The pictures pass copyright and it is organized logically. Cnriaczoy42 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The lead should be expanded. Also, the last 2 images on the page don't have fair use rationales. Otherwise looks good, leaning towards support once that is taken care of. VegaDark 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pictures taken care of, working on the lead, will be done on Thursday at the latest. Cnriaczoy42 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The lead looks a lot better now. Except I noticed that there is not a single reference for the entire list. This needs references before It would have my support. Surely there are some episode guides around the net that can be used? Other things I noticed is that the pilot episode is mentioned as never airing, yet isn't on the list. Even if it didn't air I think it should be included, with a note saying it never aired. Another thing is that the first instance the title of the list in the article should be bolded per the Manual of Style. VegaDark 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - All my concerns have been addressed, as well as the episode description issue. Looks good enough now. VegaDark 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Fair use rationales need to be added to the two most recently added images. VegaDark 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They will be added today when I finish off the others. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be an inconsistent level of detail in the episode summaries, some are full paragraphs, others are single sentences. I would prefer all of them as full paragraphs. Jay32183 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This were the official summaries given by Nickelodeon. Do you recommend that they be change dto provide information about the episode rather than juat a teaser? Cnriaczoy42 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. The most recently promoted list of episodes had one paragraph summaries of each episodes plot. If the current text was copied from somewhere else then it definitely needs to be rewritten, potential copyright issue. Jay32183 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do the first four look good enough or are they too long? Cnriaczoy42 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are good. They are only too long if you care about the table being the exact same size as the image, but that doesn't bother me. Jay32183 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This might not pass. I am still trying with all my might, but at lest two members of Wikiproject:Avatar are insisting that we use the official summaries and that they are not copyvio. I will continue working towards improving this article. Cnriaczoy42 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying that the episiode text is lifted directly from a TV guide/Nickelodeon? If so, this may be a copyvio. Please can you indicate where you got the episode descriptions from (online, magazine, etc). Colin°^Talk 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditonal Support Support The episode summaries should be rewritten as above with the added note: spoilers should not be avoided for the sake of not revealing information. If it's really important information it should be included. I also think the fair use rationales on the images could be a little more specific. That is, say why that particular image was chosen for a reason other than it came from the episode, such as "This image illustrates "foo" which is important because "bar". Jay32183 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man I just tacked my own singular fair use onto those. But if it's necessary I can go though and give a reasoning for each. The picture for "The Library" might need to be changed though, never liked it on there anyway. As for the spoilers, there is no reason for spoilers to be on a simple list. The list is there to be a list, not to be details of the episodes, that is what their individual pages are for. There are many people that use the list simply as a reference as to what shows they have missed and then go look for them, spoiling it would be unfair to them. In all fairness the plot information isn't even needed as it isn't always on other featured lists. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your choices are include spoilers or do not include summaries. Please note that if you remove the summaries the images are no longer illustrating a significant section of text and would also have to be removed. I suggest you read WP:SPOIL before saying you aren't going to include spoilers. It quite specifically says not to remove text because it's a spoiler, which you did when the nominator of the FLC attempted to expand the episode summaries. Just add the {{spoiler}} tag. Jay32183 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did we meet the conditional support or not? Cnriaczoy42 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You met the condition as far as the summaries are concerned. The lead has been expanded per the above request, and references added. I also requested that the fair use rationales be a little more specific. Instead of just saying "It comes from the episode in question" say something along the lines of "This screenshot shows..." so that non-experts can verify that images were chosen appropriately rather than at random. Carefully selected images were one of the conditions that needed to be met from the fair use debate. Jay32183 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • First 20 done, will finish the other 22 tomorrow when I am not falling asleep at the keyboard. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's exactly what I suggested. Report when the last one is done and I'll officially support.Jay32183 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Good work, I change my opinion to support. Jay32183 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per copyvio concerns. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Which are, or at least will be by tomorrow, completely gone. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Excellent work. I'm still thinking about this before I move to support, but in the very least I retract my objection. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - no references. Also excessive use of fair use images. Renata 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Unless I'm misinformed, wasn't the "excessive use of fair use images" already turned down when it came to lists? I'm pretty sure it was because I remember it having 3 fors and like 15 againsts. Therefore your oppose because of excessive use has no merit. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It is speciffically stated here that that is not an issue. Cnriaczoy42 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Renata is claiming the images don't meet FUC#3(don't use more than needed), not that having any unfree image will stop this from being promoted. I personally disagree, but I know what Renata means. Jay32183 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Renata is currently on a Wikibreak, and thus cannot strike out his oppose for right now. However, it seems that the conditions of his oppose have been addressed. Y BCZ 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Unless I'm mistaken, all of the copy-vios have now been removed. A reference has also been added. I'll admit, even as a regular editor of the page, I had concerns about if it could reach featured status, but as of now it has my Support.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added TV.com as a reference, and the reference added above needs to be converted to {{cite web}}. Jay32183 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easily done, but I would like to ask for your opinion on the reference's matter on the talk page, we've had some issues with TV.com in the past.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's an external link in the lead that should be converted to ref format. Other than that the list has a good chance of becoming a FL. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 06:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised I hadn't noticed that earlier. I've taken care of it. Jay32183 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, carefully constructed list, utterly transparent in its NPOV criteria. A few objections of possible bias have, I think, been dealt with. I suppose the FLCandidacy might show up a few short biographies that could use tweaking, but otherwise, I think we're pretty good. Partial self-nom. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't feel qualified to vote at the moment as I'm not familiar with FL process and criteria - I don't know my way around here as well as I do FA - and anyway I contributed very heavily to this list - but it does strike me that whatever objections are raised this list cannot be far off. The referencing is exhaustive and the criteria used for selection are absolutely NPOV. I've just added a few pretty pictures per WP:WIAFL. Moreschi 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A number of operas listed are not linked and at least a couple are not italicized. Rmhermen 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't spot any unitalicised ones, but I think they're all linked now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I caught one more and linked it. And another editor already got the italics. Rmhermen 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - several sound clips have been added. IMO it looks good. Moreschi 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm a bit embarrassed about how I came across this article. I'm normally not a big fan of lists and articles that say things like "major" or "notable". I was in a dispute over an unrelated list that was to the same extent, and someone mentioned this article. In a huff I went over and placed the {{OR}} tag on it, and when it got removed I listed the article for deletion. I don't normally make such a WP:POINT violation.. and it was pretty clear that's what I had done when I started to read people's comments to be about the deletion. I retracted my nomination and got some much needed sleep and break away from editing. That little story aside, the article is actually very excellent, and upon further reflection, the inclusion criteria is helps to make this article neutral and stable. No new statements were being made, so OR wasn't an issue as I had originally thought. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting this to "make up" for my mistake, but rather because I really do feel this is a feature worthy list. I only felt it necessary to explain that situation incase someone thought "hey, why is he supporting? didn't he try to delete that article?". -- Ned Scott 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support attractive, NPOV, well referenced, useful to someone new to opera, encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rmhermen 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment good list; is there some way to say what dates the date range sections are based on? It looks like date of birth, but not sure. Hmains 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • (edit conflict)Comment It already says that it is arranged by birthdate. Of course it follows that the headings are based on birthdate, broken up fairly arbitrarily by century, because humans like round numbers, with and extra break in the nineteenth century, for convenience. 69.19.14.15 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I enjoyed reading the list Hmains 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the lead is too short, the "Lists consulted" section is a meta-section and needs to be merged with references, women section needs less self-reference (stuff on how you came up with the names), when citing websites please use {{cite web}} and books {{cite book}}, and small fact: first surviving opera, Euridice (1600) or the first ever opera, Dafne? Renata 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your objection to the meta-section: A clear explanation of how the list was created is important, as it states its limits and possible biases. However, it could easily be added to a sub-section of References. The Women section has to be self-referential a bit, as we must be clear as to the limitations of the techniques for choosing major opera composers in order to explain why there are no women in the main list: I fear you'v e missed the major controversies. We want to be clear that some authorities do believe these are major opera composers, while being clear why they're seperated. Also, if we don't explain the criteria, we're going to be sent right back to the old, untentable situation where people just added whoever they wanted. The templates do not offer a useful option for citing only part of a book, and we can't just cite the whole book the lists came from, as we are NOT using every opera composer listed in an encyclopedia of opera. Still, I'll template the ones that can be. The lead, I suppose, could be longer, but I'll leave that to the other people responsible for the list. I've fixed Peri (answer: both). Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I tried to use the citation templates, but found them unsuitable: They do not seem to offer a way to handle citing the encyclopedias, and as such would be very difficult to use cleanly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from an involved editor: Agree with Adam about the meta-section, lead and the references. The advantage of this list is that the selection criteria are clearly stated. We've had very favourable comments about this from general readers. --Folantin 11:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment from an involved editor: per WP:WIAFL the lede shouold be "concise". It is. The women section has been cleaned up and I fail to see much of a problem with the so-called "meta-section". A merge with references would be horrifically confusing as many of the stuff in "References" is there to reference the annotations, not the actual selection. Per Adam, the templates don't seem to work. Moreschi 13:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I think we've fixed all objections but the citation tags now. I'll start on that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, the citation tags don't work: They cannot handle books with just an editor cleanly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I THINK everything has been dealt with you asked for. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are those particular templates specified at WP:WIAFL? --Folantin 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have had a go at the lead - it is still quite short (some would say "concise" :) - but I am not sure what more can be said. Some prefer the "cite" templates for consistency, but they are not mandatory. This nomination has already run on over its usual 10 days. I would promote it now, but I want to see if anyone has anything to add to the lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for the support. I hope you don't mind, but I reverted your changes to the lead because I have a feeling they would probably take us back into the POV "can of worms" territory we've tried to avoid in this page. Anyway, the lead is still concise and I think it explains everything a reader needs to know about the composition of the list. Thanks! --Folantin 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried modifying lead in another way - I think the list needs to make it clear how the potential POV issued was addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lists consulted" section gives a very detailed explanation of that. There is a link to the "lists consulted" section in the lead. I think that's enough. --Folantin 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does (or did), but the selection criteria are such a central element of this list that I think they really ought be set out in the lead. Anyway, I have said my piece. Let us see what others think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tried doing that once. It looked awful and unbalanced the page. I think a link is enough and any reader can handle it. It's better to put the thorough explanation at the bottom of the page. --Folantin 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wonder how the Opera corpus will be organized though... bibliomaniac15 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]